[Clfs-support] CLFS support

[Kevyn-Alexandre Paré]

Andrew,


> OK, so this is a glibc thing...  It seems that glibc on the host thinks
> it can own creation *AND* deletion of symlinks via ldconfig.  If
> ldconfig finds a symlink that doesn't actually go anywhere, it assumes
> it's a dead link left over from some libs that aren't installed anymore
> and will delete it for you.  That's annoying.

That's what ldconfig do and this is why I was testing this specific
command search why after section 4.9 the file was deleted.

>
> For now, it seems the simple thing to do is to touch /lib/libc.so or
> else build and install musl again after gcc-final in order to assure
> that the target has a proper configuration of musl.  This isn't horrible
> but it is annoying given the way the embedded book is written since the
> same set of libs that are used for building are also used for the target
> and since musl's DESTDIR install will create a symlink that goes nowhere.
>
> I'm not sure the best approach to this...  Any recommendations?

So you are saying to do a musl 4.8 then gcc final 4.9 and then redo a 4.8 ?

So my first question will be do we have other problem with the current
manual except that symlink? if not add this at the end of section 4.9.
But right now I cannot guarantee that there is not other symlink
issue?

I will try this approach and see if I'm able to boot up.

I know that you are on musl-libc mailing or maybe gcc mailing list
also? list you should ask them and see what will be there
recommendation?

thx

-KA